Conditional sales tax exemption for biris depends on proof of excise duty payment; earlier notification remains effective if conditions fail.

A sales tax exemption notification for biris was treated as strictly conditional on proof that the additional Central excise duty had been paid and that such proof was furnished to the assessing authority. The exemption did not arise unless that condition was satisfied, and the earlier 1956 notification was not displaced where the later notification's requirements were unmet. On that construction, the later notification operated only when its own conditions existed, leaving the earlier notification to govern turnover otherwise. The result was that unconditional exemption was unavailable under the later notification, and the references were answered in favour of the revenue.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether exemption from sales tax under Notification No. ST-4485/X dated 14 December 1957 was available without proof that the additional Central excise duty had been paid on the biris. (ii) Whether the later notification superseded the earlier Notification No. ST-905/X dated 31 March 1956 so as to exclude tax on the turnover of biris even when the conditions in the later notification were not satisfied.

Issue (i): Whether exemption from sales tax under Notification No. ST-4485/X dated 14 December 1957 was available without proof that the additional Central excise duty had been paid on the biris.

Analysis: The later notification granted exemption only if the additional Central excise duty leviable on the goods had been paid and proof of such payment was furnished to the satisfaction of the assessing authority. The exemption was therefore conditional, and the condition of proof was an integral part of the exemption itself. The earlier view of the Supreme Court on a similar notification supported this construction, while the later decision relied upon by the assessee was distinguishable because there the proviso did not apply on the facts.

Conclusion: The exemption was not available unless payment of the additional excise duty was proved. The issue was decided against the assessee.

Issue (ii): Whether the later notification superseded the earlier Notification No. ST-905/X dated 31 March 1956 so as to exclude tax on the turnover of biris even when the conditions in the later notification were not satisfied.

Analysis: The later notification was held to operate only when its own stated conditions existed. If those conditions were absent, the later notification did not come into play at all and there was no supersession of the earlier notification in respect of the relevant turnover. On that construction, the earlier notification continued to govern the turnover of biris where the exemption under the later notification was unavailable.

Conclusion: The later notification did not supersede the earlier notification in the absence of fulfilment of its conditions. The issue was decided against the assessee.

Final Conclusion: The references were answered in favour of the revenue, and the assessee was held not entitled to unconditional exemption from sales tax on the turnover of biris under the later notification.

Ratio Decidendi: A tax exemption notification expressed to operate only on fulfilment of specified conditions must be strictly applied as a conditional exemption, and if the conditions are not met the exemption does not arise and any earlier operative notification remains unaffected.

---